True Religion

[docphin5]

If religion were solely focused on inspiring all people to be good to each other then I believe it would be met with less resistance from nonreligious people. I believe much of the antagonism between the religious and the nonreligious occurs at those times when religion attempts to do more than inspire people for good, for example, when it attempts to rule over others by creating an elitist group of people who presume to know or be better than others, just by their affiliation rather than by the way they treat others or inspire others to be good.

True religion should inspire all people to be good. True religion is no threat to anyone. In fact, true religion would be something that even nonreligious people should support because it would be in their interest to do so, for there is a utilitarian benefit to everyone, the more true religion is produced in humans.

True religion would necessitate an objective morality coming from a "God" if all could agree that he/she/it must be good too. Otherwise, there would be some humans who reject what is good for all and seek only what is good for themselves on the basis of self-interest. There has to be a definition of good that transcends the subjective interpretations of all humans. There has to be a transcendent, objective, source of morality which we can all agree upon is good. Thus, true religion is at its most basic level necessary for the benefit of human existence serving as the glue to hold us together, not for ruling over us, but for holding us together, by inspiring us to be good to each other.

I think if we can get past the dogmas, the orthodoxy, the fundamentalism, the judgment, sometimes too prevalent in particular religious organizations we could find a rational reason to believe in a God who is good, no matter what name we call him/her/it. If we could find the courage to take that first step, then the possibilities are limitless to discovering what else he/she/it has in store for us.

 

[Whateverman]

There's a lot to respond to here, so I'm going to try to keep this brief:

• In a general sense, I agree with the majority of what you've written.
• Religion is exactly what we've made it, warts and all. It has been used to unite AND to divide, and I humbly submit that it would have to change fundamentally to not be a source of both.
• I'm not sure "true" religion is the best label. I'd submit that there are other labels, such as "reasonable", "effective" (and "good") which might be better - though I know what you meant.
• Human beings survive quite well without objective (aka. god-given/absolute) sources for the things we think & believe, so I question the need for such things when it comes to morality. It's obviously a fact that our lack of such standards has been problematic, and will continue to be a source of problems in the future.

 

[Gus Bovona]

If religion were solely focused on inspiring all people to be good to each other then I believe it would be met with less resistance from nonreligious people. I believe much of the antagonism between the religious and the nonreligious occurs at those times when religion attempts to do more than inspire people for good, for example, when it attempts to rule over others by creating an elitist group of people who presume to know or be better than others, just by their affiliation rather than by the way they treat others or inspire others to be good.

True religion should inspire all people to be good. True religion is no threat to anyone. In fact, true religion would be something that even nonreligious people should support because it would be in their interest to do so, for there is a utilitarian benefit to everyone, the more true religion is produced in humans.

True religion would necessitate an objective morality coming from a "God" if all could agree that he/she/it must be good too. Otherwise, there would be some humans who reject what is good for all and seek only what is good for themselves on the basis of self-interest. There has to be a definition of good that transcends the subjective interpretations of all humans. There has to be a transcendent, objective, source of morality which we can all agree upon is good. Thus, true religion is at its most basic level necessary for the benefit of human existence serving as the glue to hold us together, not for ruling over us, but for holding us together, by inspiring us to be good to each other.

I think if we can get past the dogmas, the orthodoxy, the fundamentalism, the judgment, sometimes too prevalent in particular religious organizations we could find a rational reason to believe in a God who is good, no matter what name we call him/her/it. If we could find the courage to take that first step, then the possibilities are limitless to discovering what else he/she/it has in store for us.

Like Whateverman, I agree with a lot of what you wrote. However, it might be true that *no* religion is true (that is, it's dogma and theology is based on false assumption or bad data or bad reading of that data).

 

[Temujin]

If religion were solely focused on inspiring all people to be good to each other then I believe it would be met with less resistance from nonreligious people. I believe much of the antagonism between the religious and the nonreligious occurs at those times when religion attempts to do more than inspire people for good, for example, when it attempts to rule over others by creating an elitist group of people who presume to know or be better than others, just by their affiliation rather than by the way they treat others or inspire others to be good.

True religion should inspire all people to be good. True religion is no threat to anyone. In fact, true religion would be something that even nonreligious people should support because it would be in their interest to do so, for there is a utilitarian benefit to everyone, the more true religion is produced in humans.

True religion would necessitate an objective morality coming from a "God" if all could agree that he/she/it must be good too. Otherwise, there would be some humans who reject what is good for all and seek only what is good for themselves on the basis of self-interest. There has to be a definition of good that transcends the subjective interpretations of all humans. There has to be a transcendent, objective, source of morality which we can all agree upon is good. Thus, true religion is at its most basic level necessary for the benefit of human existence serving as the glue to hold us together, not for ruling over us, but for holding us together, by inspiring us to be good to each other.

I think if we can get past the dogmas, the orthodoxy, the fundamentalism, the judgment, sometimes too prevalent in particular religious organizations we could find a rational reason to believe in a God who is good, no matter what name we call him/her/it. If we could find the courage to take that first step, then the possibilities are limitless to discovering what else he/she/it has in store for us.

Like others, I take issue with "true". Perhaps "pure" would be closer to what you are suggesting?

 

[docphin5]

Like Whateverman, I agree with a lot of what you wrote. However, it might be true that *no* religion is true (that is, it's dogma and theology is based on false assumption or bad data or bad reading of that data).

This would be the definition of "religion" that I would be working from.
Religion
* a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

There should be nothing more important than the pursuit of good for each other as far as possible. Our "religion" should be to do Good. In that, "the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Galatians 5:14).

But we need more than just a supreme goal of doing good. We need to all submit to the idea that there is an objective Good above and beyond what a single human might assert, otherwise, we end up with too many different subjective applications of it. We have to agree that there is a good over all which we are in need of in order for humans to get along, in all locations, and at all times. What word other than "religion", qualified by being "true" or "pure" suggests a transcendent, objective standard by which we all agree exists for our benefit? I looked up synonyms to religion and came up with these:
* faith
* belief
* teaching
* doctrine
* theology
* church

To me, a name is only a symbol for something else. Call this new religion the "true doctrine" or "true teaching" or "true theology" and give it one goal, to do good, to all, at all times, and ask all to submit to it as something above all and guiding all in order to give us the best possible life with each other, as far as possible. No other doctrines, no dogmas, no judgment (except that earned by going against the goal of doing good), no groups claiming special privilege. Just humans helping humans find happiness as far as possible.

 

[Gus Bovona]

This would be the definition of "religion" that I would be working from.
Religion
* a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

There should be nothing more important than the pursuit of good for each other as far as possible. Our "religion" should be to do Good. In that, "the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Galatians 5:14).

But we need more than just a supreme goal of doing good. We need to all submit to the idea that there is an objective Good above and beyond what a single human might assert, otherwise, we end up with too many different subjective applications of it. We have to agree that there is a good over all which we are in need of in order for humans to get along, in all locations, and at all times. What word other than "religion", qualified by being "true" or "pure" suggests a transcendent, objective standard by which we all agree exists for our benefit? I looked up synonyms to religion and came up with these:
* faith
* belief
* teaching
* doctrine
* theology
* church

To me, a name is only a symbol for something else. Call this new religion the "true doctrine" or "true teaching" or "true theology" and give it one goal, to do good, to all, at all times, and ask all to submit to it as something above all and guiding all in order to give us the best possible life with each other, as far as possible. No other doctrines, no dogmas, no judgment (except that earned by going against the goal of doing good), no groups claiming special privilege. Just humans helping humans find happiness as far as possible.

I don't think your definition of "religion" is very useful at all. It's changing a perfectly useful definition - one that must include a supernatural or theistic element - in order to bring into its fold activities and beliefs that don't include the supernatural or theistic element, and to what end? Merely so that a metaphorical usage of "religion" ("Golf is my religion.") gets incorporated?

The supernatural and theistic elements are the very things that distinguish what everyone immediately thinks of when they hear the word "religion." To not make those essential in a definition of "religion" is disingenuous.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

This would be the definition of "religion" that I would be working from.
Religion
* a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

But that's a false definition. That's not what a religion is. Using that definition bowling and stamp collecting can be a religion, which is nonsense.

 

[docphin5]

But that's a false definition. That's not what a religion is. Using that definition bowling and stamp collecting can be a religion, which is nonsense.

It is not my definition. I found the definition online. And if the most important thing to a person was a stamp collection then it would fit.

 

[docphin5]

I don't think your definition of "religion" is very useful at all. It's changing a perfectly useful definition - one that must include a supernatural or theistic element - in order to bring into its fold activities and beliefs that don't include the supernatural or theistic element, and to what end? Merely so that a metaphorical usage of "religion" ("Golf is my religion.") gets incorporated?

The supernatural and theistic elements are the very things that distinguish what everyone immediately thinks of when they hear the word "religion." To not make those essential in a definition of "religion" is disingenuous.

The definition came from online. Sorry you don’t like it.
What about calling it something else? For example, the “true teaching” or something else. Did you not read the previous post? Names are symbols so it can be called whatever as long as it is applied to do good as the most important goal. Would you be for it is the question? If not, why not? If doing good is not of supreme importance then what is? Anyone?!

 

[Electric Skeptic]

It is not my definition. I found the definition online. And if the most important thing to a person was a stamp collection then it would fit.

And it would be wrong. Stamp collecting is not a religion; nor is bowling. I would suggest that that's the fourth or fifth definition in whatever dictionary you found online; no dictionary would be so bad as to have that as the first definition. So why don't you use the first definition, instead of this bad one?

 

[docphin5]

And it would be wrong. Stamp collecting is not a religion; nor is bowling. I would suggest that that's the fourth or fifth definition in whatever dictionary you found online; no dictionary would be so bad as to have that as the first definition. So why don't you use the first definition, instead of this bad one?

Your missing the point. It is not about the name of the new religion. It is about how it inspires us to do good. The very fact people have reservations about calling my proposal if doing good as a new “religion” just shows how badly religion has failed. Religion should be associated with the supreme goal of doing good and not all this other $&@) that it has become.

 

[Tercon]

If religion were solely focused on inspiring all people to be good to each other then I believe it would be met with less resistance from nonreligious people. I believe much of the antagonism between the religious and the nonreligious occurs at those times when religion attempts to do more than inspire people for good, for example, when it attempts to rule over others by creating an elitist group of people who presume to know or be better than others, just by their affiliation rather than by the way they treat others or inspire others to be good.

True religion should inspire all people to be good. True religion is no threat to anyone. In fact, true religion would be something that even nonreligious people should support because it would be in their interest to do so, for there is a utilitarian benefit to everyone, the more true religion is produced in humans.

True religion would necessitate an objective morality coming from a "God" if all could agree that he/she/it must be good too. Otherwise, there would be some humans who reject what is good for all and seek only what is good for themselves on the basis of self-interest. There has to be a definition of good that transcends the subjective interpretations of all humans. There has to be a transcendent, objective, source of morality which we can all agree upon is good. Thus, true religion is at its most basic level necessary for the benefit of human existence serving as the glue to hold us together, not for ruling over us, but for holding us together, by inspiring us to be good to each other.

I think if we can get past the dogmas, the orthodoxy, the fundamentalism, the judgment, sometimes too prevalent in particular religious organizations we could find a rational reason to believe in a God who is good, no matter what name we call him/her/it. If we could find the courage to take that first step, then the possibilities are limitless to discovering what else he/she/it has in store for us.

True religion is believing in the truth and reality of God. And for that belief to influence the believer into doing what is righteous according to the reality of God.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

There's a lot to respond to here, so I'm going to try to keep this brief:

• In a general sense, I agree with the majority of what you've written.
• Religion is exactly what we've made it, warts and all. It has been used to unite AND to divide, and I humbly submit that it would have to change fundamentally to not be a source of both.
• I'm not sure "true" religion is the best label. I'd submit that there are other labels, such as "reasonable", "effective" (and "good") which might be better - though I know what you meant.
• Human beings survive quite well without objective (aka. god-given/absolute) sources for the things we think & believe, so I question the need for such things when it comes to morality. It's obviously a fact that our lack of such standards has been problematic, and will continue to be a source of problems in the future.

What is true about your Islam, Bahai, atheist religions?

 

[docphin5]

True religion is believing in the truth and reality of God. And for that belief to influence the believer into doing what is righteous according to the reality of God.

But what is God? To the Greeks he was the “Good One”. Is that not what I have said, that we should recognize and submit to an objective standard of good? Call it whatever as long as good is the supreme goal for humans towards other humans. Just leave out all the rest because it is unnecessary. After all, Jesus said God alone is good. We should seek to be good to each other as far as possible. Nothing more.

 

[docphin5]

What is true about your Islam, Bahai, atheist religions?

What is true is that it is in everyone’s best interest to make good our supreme goal. Good should be a standard by which we live together. I propose a “true teaching”, a “new teaching” that regulates our lives, to serve one another.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

True religion is believing in the truth and reality of God. And for that belief to influence the believer into doing what is righteous according to the reality of God.

Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. ... Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

John 18:38

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

But what is God? To the Greeks he was the “Good One”. Is that not what I have said, that we should recognize and submit to an objective standard of good? Call it whatever as long as good is the supreme goal for humans towards other humans. Just leave out all the rest because it is unnecessary. After all, Jesus said God alone is good. We should seek to be good to each other as far as possible. Nothing more.

You got that wrong.

You disagree with Jesus.

Do you know why your carnally minded "religion"leaves out the

Big part?

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind," before also paraphrasing a second passage; "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

 

[docphin5]

You got that wrong.

You disagree with Jesus.

Do you know why your carnally minded "religion"leaves out the

Big part?

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind," before also paraphrasing a second passage; "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

Your missing the point. If the supreme goal of my new religion is to do good then I have in effect made Jesus’ God, who is good, my supreme standard by which I live. In that, even an a-theist can find approval. We have to stop dividing and judging people based upon religious affiliation and recognize the supreme goal is not to join the right group but to do good, to serve one another. In that the Good One is pleased. There is no greater form of worship than to cultivate in oneself that which one esteems, in this case, to become good as the Good One is.

 

[Nouveau]

What is true is that it is in everyone’s best interest to make good our supreme goal. Good should be a standard by which we live together. I propose a “true teaching”, a “new teaching” that regulates our lives, to serve one another.

How would this differ from secular humanism?

 

[docphin5]

How would this differ from secular humanism?

You tell me. “Secular humanism” is a symbol for something else. Show me a definition of secular humanism which states that its members agree to an objective standard of good by which they commit themselves to as their supreme goal and I will join them.

If they say that an objective standard of good does not exist then you have lost me, for good then becomes relative to one’s subjective opinion and self-interests.